Mcclellan v. Mack
| Decision Date | 01 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2011–0546.,2011–0546. |
| Citation | 954 N.E.2d 123,2011 -Ohio- 4216,129 Ohio St.3d 504 |
| Parties | McCLELLAN, Appellant,v.MACK, Warden, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James McClellan, pro se.Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Gene D. Park, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.PER CURIAM.
[Ohio St.3d 504] {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, James McClellan, for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison.
{¶ 2} McClellan's claim that res judicata barred the relitigation of the propriety of a traffic stop that led to a search of his vehicle and the seizure of evidence used by the state to prosecute him is not cognizable in habeas corpus. “[R]es judicata is not an appropriate basis for extraordinary relief, because ‘res judicata does not divest a trial court of jurisdiction to decide its applicability, and the denial of this defense by the trial court can be adequately challenged by post-judgment appeal.’ ” [Ohio St.3d 505] Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345, 2008-Ohio-4479, 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 9, quoting State ex rel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Henson, 96 Ohio St.3d 33, 2002-Ohio-2851, 770 N.E.2d 580, ¶ 11.
{¶ 3} Moreover, McClellan could have raised this claim in his direct appeal. He did not. State v. McClellan, Allen App. No. 1–09–21, 2010-Ohio-314, 2010 WL 338205. Thus, res judicata bars raising it here. Smith at ¶ 11. And the mere fact that he has already unsuccessfully invoked his appellate remedy does not thereby entitle him to the requested extraordinary relief in habeas corpus. Everett v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-3832, 870 N.E.2d 1190, ¶ 6.
{¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals correctly dismissed McClellan's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and we affirm that judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano
...from any adverse judgment constituted an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that precludes a writ of mandamus); McClellan v. Mack, 129 Ohio St.3d 504, 2011-Ohio-4216, 954 N.E.2d 123, ¶ 2 (res judicata is not an appropriate basis for extraordinary relief, because it does not dives......
-
State ex rel. Vanni v. Mcmonagle
...is not a basis for prohibition because it does not divest a trial court of jurisdiction to decide its applicability. McClellan v. Mack, 129 Ohio St.3d 504, 2011-Ohio-4216, 954 N.E.2d 123, ¶ 2;see also State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano, 135 Ohio St.3d 175, 2013-Ohio-71, 985 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 5;State ......
-
State v. Medlar
...619 N.E.2d 690. {¶5} Moreover, habeas corpus is not available when the petitioner has or had an adequate remedy at law. McClelland v. Mack, 129 Ohio St.3d 504, 2011-Ohio-4216, 954 N.E.2d 4216. The failure of Medlar's appeal does not change this principle. Rossv. Saros, 99 Ohio St.3d 412, 20......
-
Lloyd v. Robinson, Case No. 14CA3452
...criminal case and direct appeal. See, e.g., Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345, 2008-Ohio-4479, 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 11; McClellan v. Mack, 129 Ohio St.3d 504, 2011-Ohio-4216, 954 N.E.2d 123, ¶ 2. "Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant ......